Category: 3. Business

  • VoltaGrid and Halliburton make 400 MW power commitment to accelerate data center growth in the eastern hemisphere

    VoltaGrid and Halliburton make 400 MW power commitment to accelerate data center growth in the eastern hemisphere

    HOUSTON – Dec. 11, 2025 – Halliburton (NYSE: HAL) and VoltaGrid today announced a significant milestone in their strategic collaboration. The companies have secured manufacturing for 400 megawatts (MW) of modular natural gas power systems for delivery in 2028 to support the development of data centers across the Eastern Hemisphere.

    This investment demonstrates the companies’ commitment to focus on innovative, sustainable energy solutions that meet evolving global infrastructure requirements. The collaboration combines Halliburton’s operational expertise and global footprint with VoltaGrid’s proven distributed power platform to deliver reliable, scalable, and efficient power for hyperscale data centers, critical to supporting artificial intelligence (AI), cloud computing, and digital transformationn.

    Powering digital growth

    • 400 MW of modular natural gas power
    • Designed for deployment to meet hyperscale data center requirements
    • Lower emissions profile compared to conventional diesel generation

    Customers require unprecedented levels of power to support their digital infrastructure growth. This investment demonstrates our ability to deliver power solutions that support growth and performance at scale.

    Jeff Miller, Halliburton chairman, president, and CEO

    Nathan Ough, VoltaGrid, CEO, added: “The Eastern Hemisphere represents a transformational opportunity for data center investment and associated power generation. We are excited about collaborating with Halliburton and making our first capital commitment to the region. Utilizing the proven VoltaGrid platform will enable expedited growth of our international collaboration with Halliburton.” 

    About Halliburton

    Halliburton is one of the world’s leading providers of products and services to the energy industry. Founded in 1919, we create innovative technologies, products, and services that help our customers maximize their value throughout the life cycle of an asset and advance a sustainable energy future. Connect with us on LinkedIn, YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook.

    For Investors:
    David Coleman
    investors@halliburton.com
    281-871-2688

    For Media Relations:
    Alexandra Franceschi
    PR@halliburton.com
    281-871-3602


    Continue Reading

  • Dow, S&P 500 end at records because investors feel good about the economy – beyond the AI boom

    Dow, S&P 500 end at records because investors feel good about the economy – beyond the AI boom

    By Joy Wiltermuth and Gordon Gottsegen

    Investors moving away from tech stocks, and using that money to push other parts of the market to new records

    Investors are back betting on the economy, beyond the AI boom.

    The Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500 index both scored record finishes Thursday, elevated by the Federal Reserve’s rate cut a day earlier and optimism about the economy that’s finally put a new shine on old-school components of the stock market.

    The Dow’s DJIA biggest gainers were Visa Inc. (V), Nike Inc. (NKE) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), according to FactSet data. Shares of artificial-intelligence darling Nvidia Corp. (NVDA) were its biggest loser.

    “The Fed rate cut – even if there’s been some hand-wringing about dissents – it helps nail down a constructive view of the economy,” said Paul Christopher, head of global investment strategy at the Wells Fargo Investment Institute. “That’s why you are seeing materials, financials and industrial stocks doing better today.”

    While the Dow gained 646.26 points, or 1.3%, to close at a record 48,704.01, it’s notable that the equal-weight version of the S&P 500 index XX:SP500EW outperformed the S&P 500 SPX and its lopsided weighting to a few large-cap tech stocks.

    Non-tech sectors also finished higher on Thursday. The materials sector, which was the worst-performing sector over the past three months, was Thursday’s top performing sector, with the S&P 500 Materials Sector Index XX:SP500.15 gaining 2.2% on the day. The S&P 500 Industrials Sector Index XX:SP500.20 and S&P 500 Financials Sector Index XX:SP500.40 ended the day at record closes. It was the first time the industrials sector closed at a record since September, according to Dow Jones Market Data.

    Beyond rate cuts boosting broader parts of the market, there are also expectations that bigger tax refunds for people and businesses will drive more optimism about the economy.

    See: Bigger tax refunds – up to $2,000 on average – could give stocks a boost next year

    AI jitters return

    The broadening out of the rally followed mixed earnings from Oracle Corp. (ORCL), the new poster child for fears about Big Tech companies splurging on debt in the AI race without a clearly defined endgame.

    Investors have been growing increasingly wary about companies borrowing money for their AI buildout plans. Jeffrey Rosenkranz, a portfolio manager at Shelton Capital Management, told MarketWatch that you can see this play out by looking at Oracle’s corporate debt. Oracle’s credit spreads have moved significantly wider in a relatively short period of time.

    In turn, these moves in the debt market have influenced equity prices too. Oracle’s stock fell 10.8% on Thursday.

    “The market believes they’re going to be the largest borrower for this AI spending boom. They’re concerned it’s stressing their balance sheet,” Rosenkranz said.

    But Oracle isn’t the only company getting this investor scrutiny. Other tech companies, like Meta Platforms Inc.( META) and Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN), have seen their shares sell off following news about AI spending.

    “There’s some fatigue around the rally in tech,” said Christopher at Wells, noting that tremors around AI plays in August and October intensified in November, as more people questioned when several trillion dollars in expected spending will pay off.

    “The theme will return,” he said, “And it will simply be punctuated by these rug-pulling announcements, where the market keeps asking the same questions.”

    Read: Oracle drags down Nvidia and other AI stocks as bubble fears intensify

    Betting on the economy

    A chief concern all year has been both the stock market’s and economy’s reliance on the AI boom.

    “Tech has had a really good year, but in the near term there’s a lack of a catalyst,” said Keith Lerner, chief market strategist at Truist Advisory Services, following Oracle’s disappointing earnings. “The market is thinking: ‘What other areas can we look at?’”

    With the Fed now having cut its benchmark policy rate to a 3.5% to 3.75% range, it sits closer to a more “neutral” level for the economy.

    That’s helped broaden the rally and raised interest in stocks that are more “leveraged to the economy,” said Lerner, noting that rate-sensitive parts of the market, including small-cap stocks, have been doing well.

    The small-cap Russell 2000 index RUT closed at a new record on Thursday, adding to its recent string of record closes. The index has traded higher five of the past seven trading days as investors anticipated the rate cut.

    “Smaller companies are doing well today in the wake of the yesterday’s Fed rate cut because they typically benefit from lower rates more than larger companies. That’s because when small companies borrow money they are more likely to get an interest rate linked to market rates,” Stephen Callahan, trading behavior specialist at Firstrade, told MarketWatch.

    Of note, the Dow outperformed the S&P 500 by 1.1% percentage points on Thursday, marking its largest one-day outperformance since Feb. 27, according to Dow Jones Market Data.

    Longer-duration bond yields that finance businesses, households and the economy also have been pretty steady since the Fed’s rate cut on Wednesday, with the 10-year Treasury yield BX:TMUBMUSD10Yat 4.14% on Thursday.

    Also of note, while investors were back to questioning AI plays on Thursday, strategists said that doesn’t mean people have been wholesale throwing in the towel on tech.

    “To me, it’s more of a normal rotation, and the market is shifting on a short-term basis to broadening theme,” Lerner said. “It’s about confidence in the stability of the economy.”

    -Mike DeStefano and Chelsea Ng contributed

    -Joy Wiltermuth -Gordon Gottsegen

    This content was created by MarketWatch, which is operated by Dow Jones & Co. MarketWatch is published independently from Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal.

    (END) Dow Jones Newswires

    12-11-25 1651ET

    Copyright (c) 2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

    Continue Reading

  • 2026 North American Corporate Credit Outlook Neutral on Stable Economy, Lower Rates – Fitch Ratings

    1. 2026 North American Corporate Credit Outlook Neutral on Stable Economy, Lower Rates  Fitch Ratings
    2. 2026 Outlook: Corporate Credit – Charles Schwab – Commentaries  Advisor Perspectives
    3. Fitch Ratings: 2026 North American Corporate Credit Outlook Neutral on Stable Economy, Lower Rates  TradingView
    4. Fitch Ratings: North American Sovereign Outlook Remains ‘Neutral’ for 2026  TradingView

    Continue Reading

  • After Airbus issue, DOT says airlines don’t have to cover passenger expenses amid aircraft recalls

    After Airbus issue, DOT says airlines don’t have to cover passenger expenses amid aircraft recalls

    The U.S. Department of Transportation has issued new guidance telling airlines they do not have to cover passenger expenses, such as meals or hotel stays, when flight cancellations or long delays are caused by aircraft recalls.

    The guidance, released on Wednesday, comes after widespread disruptions last month amid the busy Thanksgiving travel period in the U.S. stemming from inspections and software updates that carriers had to perform immediately for safety reasons on a widely used Airbus commercial aircraft. About 6,000 planes were impacted.

    Airlines worldwide scrambled to fix a computer code issue that may have contributed to a sudden drop in altitude on a JetBlue plane in October, which injured at least 15 people. Airbus said an examination of the JetBlue ordeal found a software glitch that could have affected flight-control systems on its A320 family of aircraft, the primary competitor to Boeing’s 737 planes.

    In the U.S., airlines must provide full refunds when they cancel a flight, regardless of the reason. But the Transportation Department does not require them to cover lodging or meals for stranded passengers — even when a disruption is the airline’s fault.

    Instead, airlines voluntarily offer varying levels of compensation for disruptions caused by something considered within their control, such as crew scheduling issues or mechanical problems, and the department says carriers must adhere to their commitments.

    Ten U.S. airlines, for example, offer meal vouchers when a passenger is left waiting three or more hours for a new flight after a “controllable” cancellation or a delay. They include legacy carriers Delta Air Lines, American Airlines and United Airlines, as well as low-cost carriers like Allegiant Air and Spirit Airlines. All but one of them — Frontier Airlines — promise to cover lodging for passengers if they cause an overnight cancellation or delay.

    The new DOT guidance clarifies that disruptions caused by aircraft recalls are not categorized as “within an airline’s control,” meaning those voluntary customer service commitments do not apply, although carriers can still offer them if they choose to do so.

    The department said the guidance will remain in place while it continues rule-making on how flight disruptions should be categorized.

    In September, the Trump administration scrapped a Biden-era proposal to make it mandatory instead of voluntary to provide compensation to passengers for major disruptions caused by an airline, which would have brought U.S. policy closer in line with European airline consumer protections.

    The Transportation Department said at the time that the move was “consistent with Department and administration priorities.” President Donald Trump has sought to significantly roll back or modify federal regulations that his administration deems are wasteful or burdensome.

    Continue Reading

  • Tokenization Trending: Statement on the Division of Trading and Market’s No-Action Letter Related to DTC’s Development of Securities Tokenization Services

    Today, the staff of the Division of Trading and Markets issued a no-action letter to The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”). The letter relates to DTC’s development and launch of a preliminary version of its voluntary securities tokenization program on supported blockchains that meet DTC’s technology standards. This program will enable the tokenization of security entitlements to certain eligible securities that DTC’s participants hold through DTC (“tokenized entitlements”). Any DTC participant with a registered wallet will be able to transfer its tokenized entitlement directly to the registered wallet of another DTC participant. DTC’s software system will track each transfer to record tokenization entitlements for DTC’s official books and records.

    Although this program is a pilot subject to various operational limitations, it marks a significant incremental step in moving markets onchain. DTC plays a central role in our securities markets. I am looking forward to seeing how DTC’s participants benefit from this program and the extent to which DTC’s tokenization model can enhance the functioning of our securities markets.

    DTC’s tokenized entitlement model is a promising step along the tokenization journey, but other market participants are exploring alternate experimental avenues. As I have said repeatedly, the Commission’s crypto work is iterative. We welcome and expect other market participants’ continuing efforts to innovate and experiment. Their experiments may involve other securities tokenization models. Investor choice is critical, particularly at this early stage when the market is testing what works. For example, some issuers have begun tokenizing their own securities, which may make it easier for investors to hold and transact in securities directly, rather than through an intermediary. As I previously cautioned, market participants should be aware that different tokenization structures may raise distinct regulatory considerations.[1]

    I want to thank Director Jamie Selway and his staff in the Division of Trading and Markets for their diligent work on issuing this important no-action letter.

    Continue Reading

  • Ten years – OpenAI

    1. Ten years  OpenAI
    2. Why OpenAI is a prime example of the ethical limits of capitalism  The Conversation
    3. OpenAI turns 10 today. Where will it be in another decade?  Fast Company
    4. OpenAI Ten Years: AI Innovation Milestones and Future Business Opportunities in 2025  Blockchain News
    5. The world’s first AI constitution was just written — quietly  indiaherald.com

    Continue Reading

  • Investors say Fed won’t smother growth

    Investors say Fed won’t smother growth

    Continue Reading

  • December 2025 amendments to Alberta’s TIER following the MOU with the federal government – Dentons

    1. December 2025 amendments to Alberta’s TIER following the MOU with the federal government  Dentons
    2. How to fix Alberta’s broken carbon market  Canadian Climate Institute
    3. Fixing industrial carbon pricing makes sense—for both Alberta and Canada  The Hub | More Signal. Less Noise.
    4. Ottawa quietly disapproves of Alberta’s carbon credit market gamble  iPolitics
    5. MOU – Thoughtful Journalism About Energy’s Future  Energi Media

    Continue Reading

  • Scaling AI Rocketships: ElevenLabs’ Mati Staniszewski & Lovable’s Anton Osika

    Scaling AI Rocketships: ElevenLabs’ Mati Staniszewski & Lovable’s Anton Osika

    Introduction

    Anton Osika: Point five percent of the world can even code, and much fewer can build a great product like Mati and his co-founder, right? So I decided let’s build something for the 99 percent and not this productivity boost for developers. And that’s going to be a completely new type of interface.

    Mati Staniszewski: So here we don’t give any timelines. We do the research initiatives we want to plan. You need to stay nimble that, like, the moment it comes out, you have 24 hours to start integrating that into your product. That’s like the most important time to really be ahead.

    Brian Halligan: Okay. This is a real treat. I interviewed two friends of mine, Mati from Elevenlabs and Anton from Lovable. Two terrific CEOs and companies that are absolutely ripping. And they’re both doing it from ye olde Europe. So we’re gonna get into it on the Europe thing. But there’s some topics that are just terrific. These two are kind of blossoming before our eyes. They’re right in the heart of hypergrowth. And we get to see, like, how they think about co-founders, how they’re thinking about delegation and letting go, how they’re thinking about building their exec teams, managing all the chaos coming in at them. When you’re in hypergrowth there’s just a lot of chaos. And really just pushing to keep the speed up. It’s a really good episode. I hope you enjoy it, and I’ll be back at the end with my takes.

    Main Conversation

    Brian Halligan: Okay. You two are in your early 30s, similar ages. You’ve got some very good experience under your belt. A lot of founders I’m meeting and a lot of founders are getting funded, are right in school, right out of school, 21, 22. What would your companies be like if you had started them when you were 21 or 22? I’ll let you go.

    Mati Staniszewski: Well, I think it would have been hard. I think I still would have the pleasure of working with my co-founder—I’ve known him since high school, so we always were best friends. We did everything together.

    Brian Halligan: By the way, this is Mati from Elevenlabs.

    Mati Staniszewski: Exactly. So I’m working across voice AI research and product deployment. We are on a mission to create a voice of technology. So I think I still would have started that with my co-founder, which would have been the advantage. The disadvantage is I don’t know how I would approach the first customers. How the world—like, at the time, I didn’t even know the world of entrepreneurship existed.

    So I studied mathematics. When you study mathematics, the clear career paths you take is either finance or consulting. I chose finance. I Joined BlackRock, and then only after BlackRock I learned about Palantir and decided to join them where it turned out you can actually be deployed with the customer, learn about the problems, try to understand those problems and bring them back and build the product. Which was like the first glimpse into how to build something from scratch. But before that, that was still something further out of I didn’t know how to approach. So I don’t think I would be able to understand the first early dynamics of starting something in the same way.

    Brian Halligan: Okay, you’re several hundred million in revenue. If you had started right out of school with your buddy, where would you be? Nowhere?

    Mati Staniszewski: You know the other thing I think we would have probably worked on a very different idea. I think it took—of course the pleasure of having the co-founder I know inside out, then over the years got experience of working at other companies, which helped us understand some of the dynamics, so Google, Palantir, so we understand how to build things at scale.

    But then the third thing, which I think was the most important, was the idea. And of course, through the years we looked into different projects from trying to build a crypto risk analyzer during the crypto days, which was really hard, to a recommendation system. But then when we stumbled on voice we knew that A) this is a good timing where the technology is going for the shift. We can be part of that shift of that technology. And then two, this is a huge problem that the users of the world have, and we can solve it. And if I started something at 21, 22, I just don’t think we would work on the same idea, and probably wouldn’t understand the pain the same way we do now that we approached voice.

    Brian Halligan: Got it. Anton, Lovable also on fire. If you started this company right out of school, what would it be like?

    Anton Osika: I also think it might have not been as ambitious because I had never done something entrepreneurial. And the biggest disadvantage being that young would have been that I wouldn’t know, like, why to hire very senior engineers and what type of great senior engineers are out there, because, like, they will be very scared of working for me. But I think I would have a lot of other advantages maybe being more naïve, and already then I think I surrounded myself by super, super smart people. So I think I could have built something very different with a faster iteration pace. It could have been successful.

    Brian Halligan: And I got a little bit of what you took from Palantir. You had some very interesting experiences before Lovable. Can you talk a little bit about them, and what kind of you took from those that you’re leveraging at Lovable?

    Anton Osika: Yeah, sure. So if you go way back, I also studied, like, sciences and physics, specifically. I did this long internship at CERN where I …

    Brian Halligan: CERN.

    Anton Osika: At CERN, particle physics, and where they discovered a lot of the recent physics. But there’s a lot of smart people there. And I was like, “Wait, they’re all working on these impossible problems without any elasticity. So I’m not going to be here. I’m going to go applying great innovation to the real world.” And then I was kind of inspired to start a company when I was in university, which I’m very happy about. But I ended up doing some finance, actually. Unfortunately, which was a bit too boring for me.

    Brian Halligan: Okay.

    Anton Osika: But fortunately, I started this community, Stockholm AI. And this was around when deep learning was, like, taking off in 2015-16. And I did the foundation models, almost training small language models before it was cool. And met great people there. And one was the founder at Sonat. So Joel, who recently sold Sonat to Workstate for a billion dollars.

    Brian Halligan: Yes. Congratulations.

    Anton Osika: Yes. Great job by the team there. I mean, my contribution was bringing in some of those smart people that went on to grow it to what it became. And I was there for three years, and it was like, “Oh, AI, let’s build—” we all were super young, but we learned super fast and it became successful. Then I joined as a co-founder at a company that just got into YC, and that was in recommendation systems specifically for e-commerce.

    That could have been absolutely wildly successful, that company. It had a lot of things going for it. But after a bit of momentum loss, and my co-founder and me being—I wanted the people to do something more successful, that I can say, than e-commerce.

    But I decided to do the most possible ambitious thing. And all my life I’ve been approached by people who wanted to find a great engineer to help them realize their dreams or their ideas, and that the world is full of them. Like point five percent of the world can even code, and much fewer can build a great product like Mati and his co-founder, right? So I decided let’s build something for the 99 percent and not this productivity boost for developers. And that’s going to be a completely new type of interface where you dream your idea of some technical AI product into existence.

    Brian Halligan: Yeah.

    Anton Osika: And that’s what we set out to build.

    Brian Halligan: Okay. So your first company, you were the founding engineer. Your next company, Depict, you were co-founder, CTO. Now you’re a CEO. Is it everything you ever hoped?

    Anton Osika: That’s a good question. I think it’s quite different. What I love about it is that I get to know myself and how to surround myself with the right complementary skill sets, and be challenged in all the possible ways much more than being a co-founder and CTO. And I run the company on founder mode, I would mostly empathize with. But at this stage, I mean, there’s a big shift in me in focusing on empowering and unblocking the leaders in the company. And I mean, I like that. And it’s more analytical.

    Brian Halligan: Is it what you thought? Is being a CEO what you thought? Like, what surprised you about it?

    Anton Osika: You have to do so many things, or I mean, unless you’re very disciplined about what you delegate and how you delegate it. It’s like there’s so many, many different things thrown at you, especially as you start hyperscaling.

    Brian Halligan: Yes. How about for you, you’re CEO, your first time CEO, what’s harder than you thought? What’s easier than you thought? What’s different than you thought?

    Mati Staniszewski: Yeah, I think the first one is definitely you want to hire people better than yourself in all those areas that you know for the first time. In our case, things like legal or finance or building the go-to market motion and sales, like, all of these things which I’ve seen kind of results of that work, but never have actually done the work. So it was a very quick learning of like how do you do that so you actually understand it. And you need to understand at least a little bit to then be able to assess the person that you want to bring in. So that was kind of the two things that I now repetitively try to do. When we have a new area, I’m trying to first put myself in those shoes, understand the basics and then hire persons I know that they are doing that work.

    Brian Halligan: And this is something you didn’t expect, or this is something that’s harder than you thought or easier than you thought?

    Mati Staniszewski: A lot more areas that I didn’t expect will have existed all at the same time, which was kind of that additional piece. And the delegation, too, was something that I think I hold on for for too long. I like to do myself rather than delegate. And then actually how to delegate was an interesting piece in itself, where I think you do want to give a lot of the work to other leaders that you hired, other people that you grow, but you still want to understand the details that’s happening. And then, like, how do you let them own it, be the leaders they want to be, but still remain in the details in the funder mode to be able to jump in when needed. That balance of, like, how do you interact with that is a tricky thing that is still, I think, a continuous learning for me.

    Brian Halligan: And I find that there’s kind of three types of CEOs. There’s people who are really in all the details, in everyone’s shorts all the time. There are CEOs that are pretty high level and, like, I have an expression, keep your feet in the ground, your head in the clouds, or you’re in the details and you’re up high. Some people who stay very high. And then there’s what I call spelunkers, people who kind of go down deep in one thing for a while, they come back out and go down into another thing. Have you got one of those models? Like, what are you? It sounds like you’re the first.

    Mati Staniszewski: I do like the details. I think similar to how Anton mentioned that you operate is, like, you do on the founder model. You want to understand the product, you want to actually work with the product all the time so you know how to actually use the product better than most. I’m trying to stay extremely detailed in what is that we are shipping, how we are shipping it, how it works behind the scenes. So that’s probably the key thing. I like your analogy of head in the clouds, the feet on the ground. I think the thing that I’m trying, and I think where the magic happens if you do it well, is being able to zoom out and zoom in extremely quickly before those contexts so you’re able to understand the problem, zoom into the detail, you understand the detail and then the next second you need to go to another problem which requires the same activity.

    Brian Halligan: There’s a lot of context switching being a CEO.

    Mati Staniszewski: Exactly. And you kind of need to be immediate in that. My co-founder, who is the smartest person I know and is kind of leading the research work, in his case, he needs to go extremely deep for a very long time. So we frequently speak about this very different way of approaching the work where one is, like, all about context switching, the other one is all about going as deep as possible.

    Brian Halligan: And how about what are you thinking on—how are you feeling about delegation? Is it natural, just delegate all this stuff, or is it like I want to be in the details? I had a very hard time delegating.

    Anton Osika: I think it’s often the “Ah!” I’m very impatient generally, and there is some friction when there’s many things that feel very urgent, and I know one thing, but maybe not all the other ones.

    Brian Halligan: Are you driving people crazy?

    Anton Osika: No. Mostly no. Most of they like me. They feel where I’m coming from and, like, actually this is coming from a good place.

    Brian Halligan: Okay, let’s talk about team. You just hired a friend of mine to run sales.

    Anton Osika: Yeah.

    Brian Halligan: You’re building out your team. How are you thinking about building out your team, your senior team in particular. And then are you looking for people with high slope or high experience?

    Anton Osika: Oh, that’s a good question. I think at this stage there’s many things we just need to be done very predictably, because of all the opportunities that are out there, and hiring people who have done it before and maybe wouldn’t be as effective early stage because they’re set in their ways. But that is very effective. It’s very effective.

    Brian Halligan: Oh wait, so you lean towards experience not necessarily just …?

    Anton Osika: For the things that have to get done. We know, like, what those things are. It is effective.

    Brian Halligan: Like what?

    Anton Osika: So for sales, everything that goes down to sales. Some functions of marketing that has, like, all of this …

    Brian Halligan: Looking for experience there.

    Anton Osika: I’m looking for experience at least to run them. And then if you have capacity to also hire people with high slopes and who are, like, generalists and you also find a good way to able to move them around in the company, that’s something that has worked really well for us. I cannot predict how it’s going to work when there is more structure in the company, but I’m committed to finding a good …

    [CROSSTALK]

    Brian Halligan: Are there any of these high slope generalists who you’re moving around on your senior team, direct reports, senior team?

    Anton Osika: Two senior team.

    Brian Halligan: Are any of your direct reports any of these …

    Anton Osika: Not currently.

    Brian Halligan: … you know, high slope people moving around?

    Anton Osika: Not on my actual leadership team, but many of the ones I work with day to day who feel like they’re reporting directly to me on many things are more of the highest.

    Brian Halligan: How about you on the team you’re building? You’ve got a few hundred employees, you’re less than 100. What are you thinking about the senior team? What are you looking for? Have you had any misfires?

    Mati Staniszewski: In our case, we have over 300 people. But inside of the company it’s effectively a lot of small teams, there’s 30 teams of 5 to 10 people. And it usually is a combination of—depending on the space, either few with the experience, with the past work in that space, and then usually infused with some of the high slope.

    And we like that because A) you get the generalists that can adopt a lot of the new tooling and kind of do new work. And second, we try to bring all the engineers across in some of those teams. So even in a traditional growth team, we have growth engineers and the ops team will have operations engineering to help automate a lot of the process. Sometimes use Lovable in the process to help with that work. And that has helped tremendously to kind of get the experience, the domain expertise, while creating the new process across the leadership. So then all those teams roll up to each effective lead. So we have a go to market leads, then the engineering leads.

    Brian Halligan: How many direct reports do you have?

    Mati Staniszewski: I have 15 direct reports.

    Brian Halligan: That’s a lot. Okay. And that crew of 15, are they kind of young, hungry, grew up at the company, high slope, or are they kind of been there, done that?

    Mati Staniszewski: Almost exactly half-half.

    Brian Halligan: I see.

    Mati Staniszewski: So half have done it before. Usually are growing with the role. Of course, we are growing extremely quickly. So we grew from—we started in 2022 from zero to now over $200 million in revenue. So that growth has been quick for everybody. So everybody’s learning at the same time. But half of them have seen that before and the other half are …

    Brian Halligan: Do you think that’s right, the 50/50? Like, at HubSpot, we were kind of the same. I’d look around the table and about half grew up with the company, very high slope, and half had a lot of experience. That felt right to me. Does that feel right to you?

    Mati Staniszewski: It does. So in many ways, the people that are there have grown with the company incredibly. Victoria, who leads our ops team, has never done anything like this before.

    Brian Halligan: Right.

    Mati Staniszewski: And also from a Palantir background, so also physics background, so trying to, like, create a process as we go across, and has grown incredibly with the company. And then others kind of are still super important for the company, but will stay in more of the product teams or on the IC roles in other parts.

    Brian Halligan: How about you on the—you know, what’s your mix of kind of homegrown and been there, done that? You’re probably just starting to hire execs, I guess, from the outside.

    Anton Osika: Yeah. So I built out this leadership team, which is, like, seven people with my co-founder.

    Brian Halligan: Okay, so you have seven direct reports.

    Anton Osika: Yeah. So without me and my co-founder it’s five [inaudible].

    Brian Halligan: Yeah.

    Anton Osika: And officially, everyone else, like, reports something into them.

    Brian Halligan: Yeah. Do you feel like you got that right or over time it’s going to get much bigger, or where are you at? Like, I think Jensen Huang has 45 direct reports.

    Mati Staniszewski: You had a lot, too, no?

    Brian Halligan: No, I didn’t. I had, like, 10. No—yeah. And it’s amazing to me that they get people with 45 or 50 and people with three. There’s such a range. Anyway, was the five intentional, or it just kind of happened?

    Anton Osika: It was intentional, very intentional. Yeah. To add a lot more structure. And then I think generally if you say, okay, let’s try to have a lot of structure and then it’s easier to add more chaotic things on top of that and see how that works.

    Brian Halligan: Okay, so you’re hiring. We kind of worked together on that, had a sales search. How are you thinking about these senior searches? How are you deciding? You know, you’ve never run the sales org. It’s a hard thing. Like, lots of people are in your shoes. Like, how are you making those calls?

    Anton Osika: Yeah, so with the head of sales, I worked closely with Dannie at Excel who had done this before many times.

    Brian Halligan: Okay. Dannie Herzberg from Sequoia.

    Anton Osika: Yeah. [inaudible].

    Brian Halligan: They coached you.

    Anton Osika: They gave me a lot of input on it. And I mean, in the end it was me spending a lot of time with these candidates and them spending time with the team and presenting how they would do things. And that felt like that gave a lot of—instilled a lot of confidence for me.

    Brian Halligan: Okay. So you had a bunch of help.

    Anton Osika: Yeah. And spoke to many people.

    Brian Halligan: And how about on your side? Same thing. You hadn’t run a sale—you haven’t—none of us had done what we did. But you hadn’t run a sales org. You had to make a decision on a sales leader. You had a lot of qualified candidates. How did you go about it?

    Mati Staniszewski: Yeah, it’s a tricky one, and especially, I think, for sales, the salespeople know how to sell themselves. They need to be able.

    Brian Halligan: Very well.

    Mati Staniszewski: So they are. So you kind of need to filter through, like, do they actually know how to sell? But they are all, like, good at it. So we are in a good setup where one of the salespeople was our investor, so we’ve seen him actually help us advise before he became a salesperson. So when we started the company, we started getting enterprise inbound. We realized, okay, we can start something very quickly. And he already has spent so much time with us that it became natural. Okay, we want to bring that person in.

    And then as we’ve hired other roles—we have, of course, amazing investors across, like, Sequoia who are on [inaudible] team, who are helping us on that hunt. So we would partner very closely with the domain experts to help us through the network, through the back references to make sure that they are the right ones. I think the back references really helps across that beyond the spending time with the team, which I think is crucial.

    And then the other part, which I haven’t realized until later, is that for sales specifically, is that you are hiring, of course, a great individual for creating the sales playbook, helping you sell to the enterprises. But then ultimately, the person you hire, they will set the culture for the sales team, too. Like, a lot of the people they will hire will be so similar in their approach to that work, which I didn’t appreciate until after the fact. So I was happy that the culture was very aligned. But then you can see much similar. And we have Europe and US sales teams. They’re slightly different.

    Brian Halligan: Okay.

    Mati Staniszewski: The Europe is a lot more confident, like a little bit like the European versus US upbringing. So we’re a lot more confident than our European counterparts that take more of, like, a partner sales approach. But they have core similar values, which helps.

    Brian Halligan: Okay. One of the things that confuses me about life today as a CEO is like, from HubSpot, from let’s call it—we went public in 2012, until I stepped down in 2020, we had an annual planning cycle, and the world just didn’t change a whole lot every year. How the hell do you guys plan with the changes going on underneath? Like, what’s your cycle? How do you do it?

    Anton Osika: We’ve done very little planning.

    Brian Halligan: Okay.

    Anton Osika: And I think that’s pretty smart because you can—like, everything is changing very rapidly, at least for our—I mean, our B2B offerings, enterprises are huge ones, are using our product to a huge extent. We are just, like, trying to give them the time they can get, as much time as you can get and not being like, “Okay, this is our ICP. This is exactly the sales process.” At least so far. But there’s, like, tens of thousands of people in a hackathon. That’s how many of the world’s, like, largest health care companies are using us. And we will, I think, start taking a step back and being, “Okay, where are we seeing, like, from much better data analytics as well, where are we going to focus?”

    Brian Halligan: Okay. And let me push back a little bit. You just had a big release that looks amazing. You must have planned for that. You just didn’t pull that out of a hackathon last week.

    Anton Osika: I mean, we do have a launch roadmap and, like, it goes out, like, six months. And it’s just that I’m sure it’s going to change.

    Brian Halligan: Okay, so there’s a lightweight six-month product roadmap.

    Anton Osika: Yeah.

    Brian Halligan: Okay, got it. And it’s pretty flexible, like, within that six months deep pivot?

    Anton Osika: Yeah, I do—now at this size of the company, we are of course going into longer time horizons.

    Brian Halligan: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think it’s just hard to plan more than six months right now with all the underlying platform changes. Yeah, it’s an interesting time to be a CEO. How about over at Elevenlabs? What’s the cycle?

    Mati Staniszewski: The cycle. So the teams have a pretty high flexibility in how they operate week to week. So they can kind of take different directions. But on a quarterly basis we’ll get the teams together, they’ll spend up to a day effectively outlining what are the initiatives they want to run for the next quarter. And then it’s even less for the team itself. Sometimes it helps formalize a lot of the ideas, but it’s more valuable for the teams around so they know what to expect so they can learn from, from that process.

    And we just came back from an offsite with the entire team where we are looking, like, where we would like to be as a company in 2026 and in the next three years. The thing that’s probably the hardest is research. So we do also the foundational part for voice, and have a lot of research teams that crank out some of the best models out there. And that’s, of course, so hard to predict. So here we don’t give any timelines. We do the research initiatives we want to plan. So that’s the one that goes out of the cycle.

    Brian Halligan: And you don’t know what’s going to come out. It’s very different than …

    Mati Staniszewski: You need to stay nimble that, like, the moment it comes out. That’s why the small teams, I think, help so much as well, because the moment something comes out either internally from our research team or from other teams, you know that this is like, you have 24 hours to start integrating that into your product. That’s like the most important time to really be ahead.

    Brian Halligan: Okay. Speaking of planning, I remember in the early days of HubSpot, before CRM, we were a marketing app. And every year I would go to the Salesforce.com conference called Dreamforce, and I’d sit in the audience. And our pitch, by the way, at that time was Salesforce.com is to sales as HubSpot is to marketing. And we would always think in the back of our head, “Until Salesforce.com wants to become the Salesforce.com marketing.”

    And so I’d sit in the audience every year hoping they didn’t announce a marketing product. And sure enough, 2012 was their—that was the marketing year. They bought four marketing companies and they really went for it. We ended up pivoting and going to CRM. I would imagine you have a similar feeling when Anthropic’s doing a big announcement or OpenAI’s having a big announcement. Even HubSpot is like, “We don’t know. Is OpenAI going to be a platform company like Google was? Are they going to go build vertical apps?” Are you as paranoid as I was, or are you not that worried? [laughs]

    Anton Osika: Yeah, I mean they do have a lot of distribution out of the box, so it would hurt.

    Brian Halligan: Are you or do you sit there, like, worried when they’re doing their announcements? Are they going to …?

    Anton Osika: Not really, no. Like, I have so many things to think about. I catch up on, like, on the recent announcements, and I’m sure they will announce something.

    Brian Halligan: I would imagine that they’d build something in your space.

    Anton Osika: It will be inferior.

    Brian Halligan: [laughs] You’ve got a head start. But you kind of like—I kind of think it would be an obvious thing for them to build.

    Anton Osika: Yeah. Yeah, something like what we’re building is this full platform where you’re serving most of the product needs for the [inaudible] organization. And that takes a lot of iteration steps to get to the full thing. And unless they’re, like, building that out completely in the dark and then launching it, I don’t think it’s going to be a threat from the first launch.

    Brian Halligan: Okay. I’m very impressed with your lack of paranoia. Are you para—I would anyway. Are you like I was, paranoid, nervous about what’s going to happen?

    Mati Staniszewski: Definitely a little. Always nervous and watching closely. I mean they have great, great research teams, so we know that they will be pushing into the voice space.

    Brian Halligan: Yes.

    Mati Staniszewski: At the same time given, like, the spread of work that you just mentioned, the corollary is they lack focus, and we are fully focused on voice, whether that’s creating the research or products for creating voice agents or creating creative AI workflows, which does take a lot of iterations to actually bring that to the user to make the best experience that they require to solve their problems, solve their integrations. So I do think it’s going to become increasingly competitive, especially on the research side. But that’s where the product, platform, brand, the design, the taste will matter a lot more—something we speak a little bit with Anton every so often—and that will be the big piece where companies going deep into that space will win.

    Brian Halligan: Okay. Speaking of taste, one thing I really like about both of you is I think you have taste, particularly in your marketing. Like, you guys do some interesting stuff. You are fantastic on Twitter. Fantastic on Twitter. You’re one of my favorite follows. How much time are you spending doing it? Do you do it all yourself? You’re out there on stuff. Just talk about your Twitter strategy.

    Mati Staniszewski: Yeah, sure.

    Brian Halligan: Did you tweet just before we got in here? What’s the deal?

    Anton Osika: No, but I do spend quite some time on it, and it feels like, oh my God, I’m doing so many today. I’m a CEO, I’m doing so many things, and then I have to sit down every week and get some of  the posts, right? But I do have a team that comes to me with ideas. Like every Monday we go through. It’s 15 minutes in the calendar.

    Brian Halligan: Okay. They bring you, “Here’s the tweet that would be good.”

    Anton Osika: No, they bring me ideas like, “Okay, should we do something on this?” And I drop a lot of ideas as well in a Slack channel. But this is not their full time job either. So it’s a bit—it’s not the proper function in the company.

    Brian Halligan: It’s very, very effective, in my opinion. Like, your brand is very strong. It’s working really well. Are you actually pressing the button when the tweet goes out, or is somebody doing it for you?

    Anton Osika: It’s usually me.

    Brian Halligan: Okay.

    Anton Osika: So there’s actually a very good company called Typefully that you can draft them in and then you can, like, collaborate on them. And I usually am the one who scheduled them in that. So I do the final push.

    Brian Halligan: I would keep going and getting even wackier if were you.

    Anton Osika: [laughs] Thank you.

    Brian Halligan: I think you’re killing it. You guys are busy. I remember when I was your size, I got asked to do so much shit—speak at my conference. Can you interview my daughter? Can you talk to this venture capitalist, this candidate? It’s just an endless, like—whoosh—of asks. And it’s chaotic, and the firm is asking you to do all that kind of stuff. How do you guys manage, just like kind of tactically manage the chaos, manage your schedule, get shit done in the hurricane of requests, inputs, chaos. Any tricks?

    Mati Staniszewski: A few tricks, for sure. I think we run a lot of the company on Slack, so the Slack is one part. And of course the email is especially the external piece. For email, now it’s a combination of two. My brilliant assistant Hannah is helping, and the script is helping to auto classify a lot of emails to effectively be P0, P1, P2. P0 is we need to …

    Brian Halligan: Wait, somebody else is reading your emails and P0 is …

    Mati Staniszewski: Someone else is reading, and now we have a script as well to auto classify them.

    Brian Halligan: Okay.

    Mati Staniszewski: And then P0 is …

    Brian Halligan: That is interesting.

    Mati Staniszewski: It is super helpful.

    Brian Halligan: Okay.

    Mati Staniszewski: Same-day reply on the P0. P1 can wait for the week. P2 not important. I can take out, and then I have, like, unblock Ps.

    Brian Halligan: So somebody’s reading your emails and it’s like, “Hey, you need to respond to this. It’s P0.”
    Mati Staniszewski: Labels. So every email gets a label.

    Brian Halligan: By a homo sapiens?

    Mati Staniszewski: By a homo sapiens and a script. So now it’s a combination of both. So script does the first pass and then the homo sapiens does the second pass.

    Brian Halligan: Okay. Fascinating.

    Mati Staniszewski: Hannah, who is great at it, too.

    Brian Halligan: Okay.

    Mati Staniszewski: And then you know exactly, “Okay, this is I need to reply this day. This is an important customer, partner.”

    Brian Halligan: How does she know what’s important? Like, I send you an email, she must be like, “That’s so important. You gotta respond.” How does she know what’s important? [laughs]

    Mati Staniszewski: Well, the first thing is sometimes there’s of course new where you don’t, but usually she knows me inside out. And the second thing is for a lot of the people, a lot of the clients, you, Brian, you will be in my contact list. You will have a P0 inbound. So the first moment you hit me with the email, it will auto-lassify that as a P0. So I know that it’s at the top and that I should reply on the same day. So that has worked tremendously across email. I think I’m very good on getting up on those emails.

    Brian Halligan: How about Slack? The Slack must be a firestorm.

    Mati Staniszewski: Slack is a firestorm. Slack is a firestorm. So it’s usually a combination. If I think it’s taking more than five minutes, then I will remind myself later. So I’m big on the remind function. And then if it’s less than five minutes, I usually try to reply straight away.

    Brian Halligan: Yep, kind of inbox zero on your Slack.

    Mati Staniszewski: Inbox zero on the Slack.

    Brian Halligan: Okay. And what about your calendar?

    Mati Staniszewski: Calendar is at least a week in advance clean in terms of what I want to do. And then if there’s an urgent thing that comes up, then things get reshuffled.

    Brian Halligan: Yeah.

    Mati Staniszewski: And then I think the biggest piece that I’ve done over the last six months—and you mentioned the conferences, the events—is planning at least a quarter ahead which continents I will be in. And I’m trying to never be switching the continent in the same month. So within a month I’m trying to stay in one place.

    Brian Halligan: Oh, so you go to the US for a month.

    Mati Staniszewski: I usually try to be in the US for close to a month.

    Brian Halligan: I see.

    Mati Staniszewski: And that helps a lot with getting on the ground, working with the team, but also working with the customers. I think it’s going to decrease to two weeks now, given how distributed we are.

    Brian Halligan: Yeah.

    Mati Staniszewski: But before that I used to go for, like, a few days sometimes to US, and that has been not ideal, yeah.

    Brian Halligan: Okay, your calendar must be nuts. What does it look like, and where do you build in time to, like, actually think?

    Anton Osika: That’s a good question. I think I think best by talking together with someone else.

    Brian Halligan: Okay.

    Anton Osika: So it naturally, like, happens maybe late in the office or something. One on one time.

    Anton Osika: Yeah, I think I’m still in this, like, firestorm and I’m set on innovating on what works best. Like, there’s a certain type of creativity that you also only get, like, when you’re bored or, like, you get some downtime. And I don’t—I think there’s some way to program myself with the environment to get more of that.

    Brian Halligan: I did a Wednesday, every Wednesday I work from home and no meeting. It was no-meeting Wednesday. That helped. I’m also a little introverted, so I needed a little time to read a chart. Are you guys introverted or extroverted? Are you introverted?

    Anton Osika: I say that, but people around me are like, “No, no, you’re faking.” I mean, if I’m alone for a full day, I’m like, “Oh, God. People, human company.”

    Brian Halligan: I’m not like that. I’m like, “Oh, I need another alone day.” Okay, interesting.

    Mati Staniszewski: The no-meetings day helps. I also have no-meetings day. It usually gets meetings, but they are meetings I actually want to do rather than, like—are kind of proactive for the future rather than, like, in the moment in this given week.

    Brian Halligan: One of the things that really helped me was, like, once a month I made a to-do list of, like, here’s the eight things I want to get done. And I would publish that on our—we had a wiki at the time. And so everyone in the company would see what I was working on. And I would look at it every couple days and be like, “Does my calendar match my to-do list?” Because all the slacks and emails are everybody else’s priorities imposed on you. And by putting it on there, it sort of allowed me to say no.

    It’s just so much stuff, and it’s hard to say no. And so it gave me license to say, “You know, it’s not on my to-do list, I’m not gonna do it.” And then I got a hat with a big N-O on it, a no hat. And I walked around the office and people called me Doctor No, because I just wanted to keep it focused on a couple things that I was trying to get done and the company was trying to get done, and I would lose focus and then there’d be a firestorm and then back. So I didn’t nail it. But that was a small hack that helped a little.

    Okay, you two do an amazing job building amazing companies in Europe. My two favorite entrepreneurs. What’s it like building an amazing AI company in Europe, and what are the pluses and minuses of building in Europe?

    Anton Osika: I think the network around you is not as mature compared to especially Silicon Valley. And that makes it more difficult with the distribution. I mean, like, sophisticated investors that are, like, just one coffee away can be valuable. And then once you’re staffing, especially on—I mean, the high slope generalists are distributed across the world, right? But as you’re staffing with people who have done it and seen it before, it’s a bit trickier to find it in Europe, I would say.

    Brian Halligan: I heard you refer to building in Europe as “hard mode.”

    Anton Osika: I mean, those parts are hard mode. But at the same time I think—I don’t know, maybe we would have been more successful building from the Valley or something. I could see that. But I think it has been very helpful for us to be the go-to number one talent destination in Stockholm.

    Brian Halligan: Totally.

    Anton Osika: And that’s the reason I decided no, we’re going to stay here. We’re going to stay here and bet on that there is much more available talent that doesn’t jump around and, like, they aren’t entitled and spoiled, and they’re …

    Brian Halligan: They’re cheaper.

    Anton Osika: They’re cheaper. They’re yearning for a possibility to literally change the world.

    Brian Halligan: Yeah.

    Anton Osika: And there’s not many companies that have done it from Europe. There has not been a trillion dollar company from Europe. And being at Elevenlabs or being at Lovable is one of those very, very rare opportunities here.

    Brian Halligan: I agree with that. I’m going to ask you this. You’ve got employees in the US and Europe. Any difference?

    Mati Staniszewski: Definitely differences. And similar, I will quickly add that I think the talent in Europe can be incredible.

    Brian Halligan: Okay.

    Mati Staniszewski: You just need to find the talent.

    Brian Halligan: And you’re building in London, mostly or all over?

    Mati Staniszewski: All over. But London and Poland are our biggest hubs.

    Brian Halligan: Yeah. Poland must be terrific.

    Mati Staniszewski: Poland is incredible. Like, some of the best—central Eastern Europe, some of the best.

    Brian Halligan: Everybody must want to work for you in Poland. It’s like Anton’s Stockholm.

    Mati Staniszewski: We are heavily building the brand across Eastern Europe. And we think those engineers are just so incredible. They are yearning for something. I think they’re yearning for a company that actually wants to build something generational, something big.

    Brian Halligan: Yeah.

    Mati Staniszewski: And there’s just so few of those opportunities. At the same time, the companies of Silicon Valley, frequently don’t give that opportunity.

    Brian Halligan: No.

    Mati Staniszewski: So it’s, like, perfect.

    Brian Halligan: To build new stuff. They give, like …

    Mati Staniszewski: Exactly. So I think one of the differences, which is a lot of Europeans, especially Eastern Europe, are very straightforward, straight to the point, very direct. Sometimes too direct, which we actually really enjoy as a company. It helped share a lot of ideas, criticism, feedback in a much better way.

    On the other hand, what I think the US has going for them is that confidence of things are going to be amazing, are great, are very ambitious, across the entirety of the people. And that’s something that we are continuously trying to instill in some of the people across Europe, too.

    And maybe the other thing that helps across Europe is that if you’re building in Europe, you of course need to build for the global market. You cannot build just for the European market. But then when you do that, then you—the time zone is actually perfect for catering to US, to South America, to Europe and to Asia as well, which helped in our case as well.

    Brian Halligan: And the difference between American employees and European?

    Mati Staniszewski: It will be that. I think the main one is also beyond being direct and confident, I think the entrepreneurship kind of aspiration is very different. In the US, everybody knows value of equity. Everybody is treating that as part of, like, a good career. In Europe, you kind of need to convince the employees, sometimes you need to convince the families that this is the right thing. In Poland, we need to frequently explain that equity is worth something, almost force the employees to take the equity, which always had an interesting surprise of, like, “How does it work?”

    Mati Staniszewski: But now we’ve went through this cycle a few times and the equity is worth something with the tender offers. So people started educating other people that this is actually the right choice, which we hope will, in places like Poland and wider Europe, will become more normalized and then something that people will want to do across entrepreneurship.

    Brian Halligan: When I was in my late 20s, I spent—or early 30s—seven years in Asia. And I worked for this company, PTC, a very good company in the US. And I had to convince Japanese people and Chinese people and Korean people that this thing called equity is going to be worth a lot. And man, it was a dog fight convincing them. They were like, “What? You’re just trying to pay me less money.” I remember those days. And people made a lot of money on that stock. [laughs]

    Okay, on this topic, like, 9-9-6. Are you guys in office 9-9-6 hardcore? Like, one interesting thing, like, my generation of CEOs we kind of followed—Steve Jobs was sort of on our Mount Rushmore. And the current generations, it feels like it’s a lot more Elon. And companies are working much more like Elon’s companies. Who’s your Mount Rushmore? Are you 9-9-6 like Elon, plus? Like, where are you guys at?

    Mati Staniszewski: Steve Jobs is great.

    Brian Halligan: Yeah, I think it was a good one.

    Anton Osika: I mean, what I like about him is he really understands that, like, a team working better and better and better over time and, like, really obsessing and caring about what you’re doing is …

    Brian Halligan: Who are you talking about?

    Anton Osika: Steve Jobs.

    Brian Halligan: Yes. Who—if I’m Steve Jobs, are you Elon? Who’s your …

    Anton Osika: I mean, my style can be a bit Elon. I’m like, “This has to get done now. What does it take to do this faster?”

    Brian Halligan: Is it Daniel Ek?

    Anton Osika: No, I don’t know him that well, fortunately.

    Brian Halligan: Okay.

    Anton Osika: But based on reading about Elon, I have a bit of that. But I think you lose a lot of, like, the autonomy and teams feeling ownership of doing it too much the Elon way. So I might get back to you.

    Brian Halligan: Okay. Are you 9-9-6-plus?

    Anton Osika: Me? Many people around the company are 9-9-6 plus.

    Brian Halligan: Your company.

    Anton Osika: Many people in the company. But people have family as well. So it’s just we have very, very, very high expectations of everyone to have—to drive impact. And then if you’re not working many hours, you need to have clearly have impact in other ways.

    Brian Halligan: Okay. Do you think that scales? Like, one of the problems with scale is that drive sort of wanes and that—you know, do you think that fades, and is there ideas in your head how you keep that motivation going?

    Anton Osika: I think it’s about setting very, very ambitious goals every week.

    Brian Halligan: That’s one of your things. Every week you put out goals.

    Anton Osika: Yeah. And then it’s being very clear before someone joins what the expectations are. And it’s about evaluating impact.

    Brian Halligan: And have you lost candidates, like VP candidates, because, like, “You know what? Yeah, I love the mission. I love you, but I can only do 50 hours a week. And I got a—I’ve got a life. I’ve got four kids.`

    Anton Osika: I think we lost some kind of like that. But that’s maybe good.

    Brian Halligan: Life in the big city.

    Anton Osika: Yeah.

    Brian Halligan: Okay, who’s your Mount Rushmore?

    Mati Staniszewski: It’s definitely closer to Steve Jobs between those two. But he was always so caring about the design, about making it, kind of hiding any complexity from the user, making it easy to use. He does have this obsessive piece, which is maybe slightly different to how I would try to run it or work in a company. But I love what he created as his legacy.

    But there are amazing other CEOs there. You know, there’s like more pockets from different people that are incredible.

    Brian Halligan: Who?
    Mati Staniszewski: I like Jamie Dimon and his clarity, and his—like, across so many things that he runs, and I think he has, like, half a million people under him. He feels very calm and under control. I think this is admirable. Satya. I think the way he kind of turned it around and he is, like, a very caring person around how he runs the company. I think this is another great leader. But from the 9-9-6, I think in our case …

    Brian Halligan: Are you guys 9-9-6?

    Mati Staniszewski: Not in the office. I think everybody is online chronically and all the time. We definitely make it very explicit before you join, it’s we think it’s, like, a once in a lifetime change with AI across the world. We can be the voice of the change, the voice of the technology. And everybody understands the opportunity ahead is rare. And we do lose candidates across.

    Brian Halligan: You do lose them.

    Mati Staniszewski: We do. Frequently. I mean, they frequently, I think, won’t even apply. We are, like, very vocal in the process that, yeah, that it’s a lot of time commitment. We never impose it or ask anyone for doing that, but they do. It’s usually seven days a week, but you are not maybe working all the seven days a week, but you are online and ready to jump in, especially on the weekends, on any questions. And I think people enjoy working next to passionate people. So you kind of get that bar higher, you run together and then when you see results, it’s also motivating.

    Brian Halligan: In, like, the last 50 employees, like, from employee 250 to 500 versus 50 to 100, is there a difference in your mind in commitment, in zeal, in whatever?

    Mati Staniszewski: You know, it’s definitely some, but the current employees are also on it. And I think the small teams helped where you have, like, you know, you effectively joined a unit of 10 people or less. So you are seeing that everybody’s running in that unit and everybody else is running, too. So you are going after that, too. Of course, we also have people with families, people that will have other things. And that can work and it does. But usually those people are thinking about work and how to improve at all times.

    Brian Halligan: What do you guys think European—like, what needs to happen in Europe to have a lot more of you guys?

    Anton Osika: I think they’re coming.

    Brian Halligan: You do?

    Anton Osika: Yeah, truly. Yes.

    Mati Staniszewski: A hundred percent.

    Brian Halligan: Okay.

    Anton Osika: There’s, like, engineering schools now. You ask them would you consider starting a startup where you’re being part of the founding team. Eighty percent yes.

    Brian Halligan: Okay.

    Anton Osika: It went up to 10x.

    Brian Halligan: Okay. Interesting.

    Mati Staniszewski: And that first generation will help. I think, like, few of the companies, if we do a good job, get some people to start another set of companies. I think the second thing of what’s, I think, missing in the European ecosystem is people that have done it before, have seen that scale, and then of course have got a good outcome, to then make clear of, like, this is actually a really cool thing to do. Hopefully those people can infuse additional set of startups across Europe.

    Brian Halligan: We started HubSpot in Boston, and it’s got a lot of the same benefits as Europe. Like so much talent. MIT is there. Just we were a magnet for it. The area it fell down is as we scaled and we needed to hire, you know, a head of marketing who had seen the movie before, someone who had really operated at scale. So we started hiring more people in the Valley. That started to happen around a thousand employees. But it feels similar. Boston feels similar to Europe in that way. Boston’s conservative. It’s kind of similar. Any advice for all—there’s lots of young, smart entrepreneurs listen to this pod that want to build the next Lovable, the next Elevenlabs. Any advice?

    Mati Staniszewski: First of all, I think go for it. It’s amazing to build a company. And of course, maybe I was in a lucky position where I had savings and I didn’t have the dependencies. But if you are in that similar situation, I think it’s go for it. The learning experience you get across building a company, even if it doesn’t go the way you expect, I think is so much more valuable than frequently joining other companies and being a smaller coggle in a big machine.

    And then I think obsess about the problem. Try to deeply understand what you are actually solving for. Talk with customers. And the simplest advice I think is the most valuable here, which is actually working with the user and iterating very deeply.

    And then I think it’s all about the team and hiring. So the people you bring across and who you build with will be defining for the company. So pick your co-founders carefully and well, and know them ideally for a longer time before you decide to start something. And as you assemble the team, you really want the trust of individuals that you want to go for the next decades together.

    Brian Halligan: Anton?

    Anton Osika: I think you want to learn things very, very fast if you’re getting started. And you want to learn a lot of things. You want to learn how to hire. I mean you don’t have to be so good at managing but having high expectations of people and giving them clear feedback. And you want to learn how to sell. You want to sell to your customers or sell them [inaudible] market to the people you want to hire.

    [CROSSTALK]

    You’re always selling. And so you should do that all the time, and fail and ask someone who you respect to give it to you hard on, like, how bad you are.

    Brian Halligan: I see.

    Anton Osika: Because if you’re just getting started …

    Brian Halligan: Were you bad at it at first?

    Anton Osika: Yeah, of course. [laughs]

    Brian Halligan: Okay.

    Mati Staniszewski: [inaudible]

    Anton Osika: And so I just go out there and, like, try to find joy probably by having a co-founder as you’re talking about in the failings and the learnings.

    Brian Halligan: Yes.

    Mati Staniszewski: Yeah. That’s the other thing which I was thinking about your earlier question. What you don’t expect as a CEO’s role. And you don’t expect that you don’t have anyone to complain to, effectively.

    Brian Halligan: Right.

    Mati Staniszewski: So your co-founder is your soulmate that you can speak to. And then there are some sometimes amazing people in the team you can iterate through. But not to the same—not to the same …

    Brian Halligan: Yes, I totally agree with that. I want to congratulate you guys on all your success. I admire what you guys are doing. I sure hope you guys build trillion dollar companies in Europe. That’d be amazing. Good luck to you. Thanks for doing the pod.

    Mati Staniszewski: Thank you so much.

    Anton Osika: Thank you very much.

    Brian Halligan: Appreciate you.

    Mati Staniszewski: Thank you.

    Brian Halligan: Yeah.

    Closing Thoughts

    Brian Halligan: Okay. Those two were terrific. And it’s nice to see them kind of blossoming before our eyes. What they have in common is they both had, like, seven or eight years of experience with, like, one good company in there. And I know it’s fashionable to drop out of Harvard and start a company like Zuck did, but at least for me, I did two startups before HubSpot. One was very successful, went public and got very large. Man, did I learn a lot from that. And man, are there a lot of lessons inside of HubSpot about scaling. But you do you. But I don’t think it hurts a founder to be in a really good startup to learn before they start a company.

    They talked a lot about their co-founders, and one of the things about being a CEO is you’re a shit umbrella. Like, all the shit rains on you, and you’ve got an umbrella for your whole organization. It’s hard. The other thing about being a CEO is, like, no one is coming to save you. In my startups, my boss would come and save me, another team would come and save me. There was a lot of resources around. You’re pretty alone and it’s on you as a founder. The one person you can complain to is your co-founder. And so my advice for you would be to really get to know your co-founder, because it’s an incredibly important relationship for you going forward.

    We got into the mechanics of the job, and we talked about delegation. And they’re kind of starting to—it’s interesting, they’re starting to delegate. They’re like, we’re kind of founder mode, we’re not sure how to do this, but they’re starting to do it and it’s impressive to see what they’re doing. My experience, the way that worked, as HubSpot scaled, I was very founder mode in sales and in product and man, the rest of the organization, I was very manager mode. And I drove both constituencies crazy. The sales and product folks, I was in their shorts and they always complained I was too much in the details. All the rest of them complained that I didn’t respond to their emails. So that was sort of the blend for me. I wasn’t all manager mode, it wasn’t all founder mode, and that kind of worked for me. And maybe that would work for you running your company.

    I like the way they were thinking about their teams. I ask all the CEOs on these episodes, you know, what’s their span of control? And it’s all over the map. By the way, I thought everyone was copying Jensen Huang and having 60 direct reports. That is definitely not true. He is an n of one on that. And, like, Anton only has five direct reports, I had ten, Mati has fifteen. So it’s a little bit all over the map. If I were you, I would think about that. What do you want your span of control to be? And I would have it as wide as you can tolerate. As you scale from 100 to 1,000 employees, all those layers in there really will slow you down. So you want to keep it as flat as you can.

    The other thing I liked about how they were thinking about teams is they were definitely starting to bring in some been-there-done-that people. The whole team wasn’t been-there-done-that. The way HubSpot ended up is we had about half been-there-done-that and a half homegrown. And VCs try to jam you full of been-there-done-that. I like that balance, having a little bit of both. The homegrown talent is underrated on your teams, most likely.

    We also talked about just managing the chaos. Like, they’re growing crazy, they have so much opportunity. It’s just a hurricane of input coming into them.

    And a couple things, couple hacks I liked. Anton is really good on Twitter, by the way. If you don’t follow him, he’s really good. I like that every Monday morning he has a 15-minute meeting with a couple of his staff members and they brainstorm on tweets. So he’s not just coming up with that extemporaneously. He’s thought about it a little bit, and he’s very good at it.

    Most of them, or at least I had a no-meeting day where I could actually think and get some room and work on projects. I think that’s a good hack. I had it on Fridays for a while. Everyone thought I was taking a long weekend. I moved it to Wednesdays. And they’re going to have to get good at saying no. Like, I was working on saying no, so I made myself this hat, my no hat. And I had a no shirt, too. And I think startups are much, much more likely to die of overeating than starvation. That’s probably true of yours. You might need your own no hat.

    You know, speaking of chaos, I asked them are they 9-9-6, and they’re both 9-9-6-plus. And I think that’s interesting. I’ve asked all the CEOs I’ve been interviewing, there’s been 10 so far, and the early stage startups are all doing 9-9-6 and the bigger ones aren’t. And I think that’s probably life in the fast lane. As your employees start having families and you’re hiring people with families, it’s just hard to get people in the office six days a week working nine to nine. But I think keep it going as long as you can if you’re doing 996. I think it’s good. I was 9-9-6 but I didn’t ask my team to be 9-9-6.

    We talked a lot about Europe. Those are two amazing companies in Europe. And Europe’s a little—we started in Boston, and Boston’s a little bit like Europe. You’re, like, outside the echo chamber of Silicon Valley. And there’s some real pluses and minuses to being outside of the Valley. The pluses are you end up being a very large fish in a very small pond, which can help. And you have really good access to talent and not a lot of competition for that talent. So real pluses.

    The minuses we found out at HubSpot, and they’re going to find out, is inside of Boston there’s just not a lot of scale tech companies, so we had a hard time finding executives who had seen that movie on that next level of scale. Like, we took a couple people from Akamai and that worked out, but it was pretty lean. And so we started hiring execs out in San Francisco. So real pluses and minuses to being in a big city. If I had to do HubSpot over again, by the way—you didn’t ask, but I would have—we were in Boston. I’d have a big office in Boston, big office in San Francisco, then another big office in, I don’t know, Nashville or Denver or Toronto would be pretty good, where you can hire lots and lots of people for less money and have them be a little bit more loyal than, let’s say, in your San Francisco office. I wouldn’t let everybody work from home. I’d have three big hubs.

    Okay, we wound up obviously talking about Europe. They’re both in Europe. Really encouraging for Europe. The world could use more Silicon Valleys and the world could use a vibrant European entrepreneurial scene. I love to hear from them that the engineering schools are chock full of kids that want to start companies. I think that’s going to be good for the world and good for Europe. So I’m excited about that.

    I hope you enjoyed the episode. I really liked it. These two are great. I will see you on the next episode of Long Strange Trip.

    Continue Reading

  • Vicuña Corp. Applies for RIGI PEELP in Argentina

    Vicuña Corp. Applies for RIGI PEELP in Argentina

    Vicuña Corp. Applies for RIGI PEELP in Argentina

    December 11, 2025

    VANCOUVER, BC, Dec. 11, 2025 /CNW/ – (TSX: LUN) (Nasdaq Stockholm: LUMI) Lundin Mining Corporation (“Lundin Mining” or the “Company”) is pleased to announce that Vicuña Corp. (“Vicuña”) has submitted an application for the inclusion of the Josemaria and Filo del Sol deposits (collectively, the “Vicuña Project”) to the Incentive Regime for Large Investments (“RIGI”) under the Long-Term Strategic Export Projects designation (“PEELP”) in Argentina. Argentina’s RIGI regime is designed to attract and accelerate large-scale investment through long-term fiscal stability and transparent regulatory conditions.

    The submission represents a key milestone to advance a multi-decade, district-scale copper-gold-silver development project in Argentina, making it one of the largest potential foreign investment projects into the country across all sectors. Vicuña Project details and economic benefits will be outlined in an integrated technical report expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2026.

    Jack Lundin, President and CEO, commented “Submitting the Vicuña RIGI PEELP application is an important step in positioning the project for long-term success. The RIGI framework offers a stable investment environment that aligns well with the scale, capital intensity, and multi-decade potential of the Vicuña Project. The combination of RIGI benefits, provincial support, and the quality of the Vicuña Project resource base lays the foundation for transformative value creation. Together with our valued partner BHP we look forward to continuing to build on the solid relationship with the Argentinian and San Juan governments.”

    About the RIGI Regime

    RIGI offers a competitive investment framework and an array of benefits that significantly enhance project economics for rapid development. RIGI offers regulatory stability, including lower corporate and dividend withholding tax rates, removal of export duties, value added tax offsets and repatriation of revenues.

    The Vicuña Project is the first mining project to apply for the RIGI PEELP, which is designed to support large scale, long-term investments into Argentina. RIGI PEELP provides longer benefit periods (40 years vs 30 years) and accelerated timelines to repatriate revenues and export duty exemptions, as compared to the regular RIGI regime.

    About Vicuña

    Lundin Mining indirectly holds a 50% interest in Vicuña, an independently managed joint operation which owns the Josemaria deposit in Argentina and the Filo del Sol deposit in Argentina and Chile.

    An initial Mineral Resource estimate for the Filo del Sol sulphide deposit, an updated Mineral Resource estimate for the Filo del Sol oxide deposit, and an updated Mineral Resource estimate for the Josemaria deposit highlighted the combined Vicuña Project as one of the largest copper, gold and silver resources in the world (see Lundin Mining’s news release dated May 4, 2025).

    The proximity of the Filo del Sol and Josemaria deposits form the basis of the Vicuña Project which allows for joint development capturing greater economies of scale, shared infrastructure and increased optionality for staged expansions to support a globally ranked mining complex.

    About Lundin Mining

    Lundin Mining is a Canadian mining company headquartered in Vancouver, Canada with four operating mines in Brazil, Chile and the USA. We produce commodities that support modern infrastructure and electrification. Built for growth, ready for opportunity, our strategic vision is to become a top ten global copper producer. To get there, we are executing a clear growth strategy, which includes advancing one of the world’s largest copper, gold, and silver projects in the Vicuña District on the border of Argentina and Chile, where we hold a 50% interest. With a legacy of value creation in the base metals sector, Lundin Mining has a proven track record of resource growth, operational excellence, and responsible development. We are committed to safety, sustainability, and delivering long-term value for stakeholders. Lundin Mining’s shares trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange (LUN) and Nasdaq Stockholm (LUMI). Learn more at www.lundinmining.com.

    The information in this release is subject to the disclosure requirements of Lundin Mining under the Swedish Financial Instruments Trading Act. The information was submitted for publication, through the agency of the contact persons set out below on December 11, 2025 at 1:15 Pacific Time.

    Cautionary Statement on Forward-Looking Information

    Certain of the statements made and information contained herein are “forward-looking information” within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws. All statements other than statements of historical facts included in this document constitute forward-looking information, including but not limited to statements regarding  the Company’s plans, prospects, business strategies and strategic vision and aspirations and their achievement and timing; the Company’s growth and optimization initiatives and expansionary projects, and the potential costs, outcomes, results and impacts thereof and timing thereof; permitting requirements and timelines; the results of any Preliminary Economic Assessment, Pre-Feasibility Study, Feasibility Study, or Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve estimations, life of mine estimates, and mine and mine closure plans; anticipated exploration and development activities, including potential outcomes, results, impacts and timing thereof; the Company’s integration of acquisitions and expansions and any anticipated benefits thereof, including the anticipated project development and other plans and expectations with respect to the Vicuña Project and the 50/50  joint arrangement with BHP; anticipated costs and benefits of the Vicuña project; mineral resource estimation for the Vicuña Project, including the parameters and assumptions related thereto; the operation of Vicuña with BHP; the realization of synergies and economies of scale in the Vicuña district; the development and future operation of the Vicuña Project; the timing and expectations for future studies and technical reports with respect to the Company’s operations and projects, including the Vicuña Project; Vicuña’s RIGI PEELP application and the timing and benefits thereof; and the leadership and management of Vicuña Corp. Words such as “believe”, “expect”, “anticipate”, “contemplate”, “target”, “plan”, “goal”, “aim”, “intend”, “continue”, “budget”, “estimate”, “may”, “will”, “can”, “could”, “should”, “schedule” and similar expressions identify forward-looking information.

    Forward-looking information is necessarily based upon various estimates and assumptions including, without limitation, the expectations and beliefs of management, including that the Company can access financing, appropriate equipment and sufficient labour; assumed and future price of copper, gold, zinc, nickel and other metals; anticipated costs; currency exchange rates and interest rates; ability to achieve goals; the prompt and effective integration of acquisitions and the realization of synergies and economies of scale in connection therewith; that the political, economic, permitting and legal environment in which the Company operates will continue to support the development and operation of mining projects; timing and receipt of governmental, regulatory and third party approvals, consents, licenses and permits and their renewals; positive relations with local groups; the accuracy of Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve estimates and related information, analyses and interpretations; and such other assumptions as set out herein as well as those related to the factors set forth below. While these factors and assumptions are considered reasonable by Lundin Mining as at the date of this document in light of management’s experience and perception of current conditions and expected developments, such information is inherently subject to significant business, economic, political, regulatory and competitive uncertainties and contingencies. Known and unknown factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking information and undue reliance should not be placed on such information. Such factors include, but are not limited to: dependence on international market prices and demand for the metals that the Company produces; political, economic, and regulatory uncertainty in operating jurisdictions, including but not limited to those related to permitting and approvals, nationalization or expropriation without fair compensation, environmental and tailings management, labour, trade relations, and transportation; operating jurisdictions, including but not limited to those related to permitting and approvals, nationalization or expropriation without fair compensation, environmental and tailings management, labour, trade relations, and transportation; risks relating to mine closure and reclamation obligations; health and safety hazards; inherent risks of mining, not all of which related risk events are insurable; risks relating to tailings and waste management facilities; risks relating to the Company’s indebtedness; challenges and conflicts that may arise in partnerships and joint operations; risks relating to development projects, including Filo del Sol and Josemaria; risks that revenue may be significantly impacted in the event of any production stoppages or reputational damage in Chile; the impact of global financial conditions, market volatility and inflation; business interruptions caused by critical infrastructure failures; challenges of effective water management; exposure to greater foreign exchange and capital controls, as well as political, social and economic risks as a result of the Company’s operation in emerging markets; risks relating to stakeholder opposition to continued operation, further development, or new development of the Company’s projects and mines; any breach or failure information systems; risks relating to reliance on estimates of future production; risks relating to litigation and administrative proceedings which the Company may be subject to from time to time; risks relating to acquisitions or business arrangements; risks relating to competition in the industry; failure to comply with existing or new laws or changes in laws; challenges or defects in title or termination of mining or exploitation concessions; the exclusive jurisdiction of foreign courts; the outbreak of infectious diseases or viruses; risks relating to taxation changes; tax-related disputes; receipt of and ability to maintain all permits that are required for operation; minor elements contained in concentrate products; changes in the relationship with its employees and contractors; the Company’s Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources which are estimates only; uncertainties relating to inferred Mineral Resources being converted into Measured or Indicated Mineral Resources; payment of dividends in the future; compliance with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including changes to such laws or regulations; interests of significant shareholders of the Company; asset values being subject to impairment charges; potential for conflicts of interest and public association with other Lundin Group companies or entities; activist shareholders and proxy solicitation firms; risks associated with climate change; the Company’s common shares being subject to dilution; ability to attract and retain highly skilled employees; reliance on key personnel and reporting and oversight systems; risks relating to the Company’s internal controls; counterparty and customer concentration risk;  risks associated with the use of derivatives; exchange rate fluctuations; the terms of the contingent payments in respect of the completion of the sale of the Company’s European assets and expectations related thereto; and other risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to those described in the “Risks and Uncertainties” section of the Company’s MD&A for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2025, the “Risks and Uncertainties” section of the Company’s MD&A for the year ended December 31, 2024, and the “Risks and Uncertainties” section of the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2024, which are available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca under the Company’s profile.

    All of the forward-looking information in this document is qualified by these cautionary statements. Although the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking information, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated, forecasted or intended and readers are cautioned that the foregoing list is not exhaustive of all factors and assumptions which may have been used. Should one or more of these risks and uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those described in forward-looking information. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that forward-looking information will prove to be accurate and forward-looking information is not a guarantee of future performance. Readers are advised not to place undue reliance on forward-looking information. The forward-looking information contained herein speaks only as of the date of this document. The Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise forward looking information or to explain any material difference between such and subsequent actual events, except as required by applicable law.

    Vicuña Corp. Applies for RIGI PEELP in Argentina (CNW Group/Lundin Mining Corporation)

    SOURCE Lundin Mining Corporation

    For further information, please contact: Stephen Williams, Vice President, Investor Relations: +1 604 806 3074, Robert Eriksson, Investor Relations Sweden: +46 8 440 54 50

    Continue Reading